Race 3 at Menangle tonight

[smithy]

The inference, mate...that's not too flash at all there Smithy.
In her defence, Flashing's without doubt one of the most objective observers there is around, be those involved mates or not so.

Watch the race in question and in particular closely watch the start.

At least 3 of the horses to the inside of Roman Stride shape up to get out of there quick, they all get right up on the gate and when the gate folds back they ALL leave for the front. Luke looks left, sees what is shaping up to happen to when they're released he takes off the gate & settles at the rear. There's your winning move right there. The first 100-150m of the race.

If instead Luke simply drives on with the horse so as to not fall foul of the Change Of Tactics rule, if instead he leaves hard along with those inside to make a line of 4 into the 1st turn... there's no question whatsoever that Roman Stride works double overtime to make the front and ultimately pays the price for doing so by running out of steam inside the final 16th, ending up in all likelyhood a beaten favourite.

The outcome? The Punters would have done their $$$ cold & the Owner would have missed out on a good prizemoney cheque but Luke would have complied with a continually more skewed interpretation of the Change of Tactics rule...and it should be noted this is THE VERY RULE that is in place and perports to protect the Punters in the first place.

Honestly...if that's not a huge WTF?????? then I don't know what is.

To further underline the ridiculous nature of this fine...is the fact that the decision Luke made was a WINNING DECISION!
He clearly took note of what was shaping up as the gate rolled, he snagged out of the early battle, sat back, made 1 late charge at them and HE WON THE RACE. The fav. saluted. The Punters cashed their tickets. The Owner would have been more than pleased. All is well.
It is not as though he snagged off the gate & buried the horse at the rear of the field & the proceeded to run it up every dry gully he could find & finish out of the placings, dudding the Punters & the Owner.

If this interpretation of the Change of Tactics rule is that which we can expect as par for the course in the future then IMO we are in some serious trouble. In fact, we may as well not have any races at all, we may as well flip over to those dreadful video horse racing terminal things as none of the drivers will ever feel free to make any last moment decisions to alter their approach in order to give their horse the best possible chance of winning the race.
On that score...please let be noted for the record, so there is absolutely no question about my view of it whatsoever... that is EXACTLY what Luke did with Roman Stride. He gave it the best possible chance to win the race and it did.

In light of all this it's also worth noting that there but for the grace of God go any one of us who takes a seat in the bike or owns or trains a horse & that's the reason why this whole thing has ticked me off like it has done.
Ask yourself what happens when your man unexpectedly has to change it up at the last moment due to circumstances beyond his control in order to give your horse the best possible chance of winning a race? Ask yourself what you'd think if he made that change, won the race & duly got fined for his troubles?

had no problems going forward to park outside big fella mach, did he drive him to get beaten that race then? because there was no horse in that field 5 lengths within the quality of big fella mach... so why wouldnt he have pushed forward before at large did? surely lukes knows his form and that explosive turk hands up and desteros also handed up his previous start

[Greg Hando]

No different to today's effort 2 races in succession 1 driver gets hit for a slow sectional and the next race another slow sectional and no fine

[triplev123]

Geeze Winston...are you trying to kill me or something?
I'm already fired up enough as it about the application of the Change of Tactics rule.
The Slow Sectionals thing is another super-wank.
It's not up to the guy on the front end to make the speed. It's up to the drivers behind him to use some initiative and force it. If they just sit back & let the leader get away with larceny then more fool them. They deserve to get beaten. To fine the leader because those behind him don't have a go is another thing that's just plain ridiculous.

[Greg Hando]

Totally agree Triple

[triplev123]

G'day again Winston,

Others might see it differently however, as an owner I think if you win a race and the driver is subsequently fined for a change of tactics or for setting slow sectionals then you should pay his/her way.
Even if you don't win and your driver has done all he/she could to land your horse home and they get fined in such a manner for their efforts, you should pay his/her way.
I say that for two reasons, firstly because I think that they're stupid rules both & secondly because it is simply the right thing to do.
The fella or the girl out there driving for you is effectively your employee even if only for the 2-3 minutes or so that they will spend in the bike...and as such owners and especially winning owners should look after them accordingly.
Of course it tends to play that way in Harness Racing anyway, most owners I know square their drivers away if they get fined however interestingly, in the TB's apparently that is far from being the case.
A friend of mine is a Jockey here in Sydney & I was very surprised when he told me that even if they win the race the majority of the TB owners will leave them hanging if they're subsequently fined by the Stewards. Personally, I think that's pretty despicable.
Of course, I'm not suggesting owners in either code should cover the arse of a Driver or a Jockey for instances of severe interference, careless driving/riding etc. ...however as far as the other rather long & tedious list of possible infractions go and often relatively petty ones at that, I think the owners should be footing those sorts of bills.

[Greg Hando]

I pay my drivers fines if they run in the money he also drives my horses trackwork so he know's their limit's and drives accordingly i don't give him instruction's at all because thing's change once the gate goes it is all up to him how he drive's them also i have a few bob each way for him to keep it interesting

[mango]

Geeze Winston...are you trying to kill me or something?
I'm already fired up enough as it about the application of the Change of Tactics rule.
The Slow Sectionals thing is another super-wank.
It's not up to the guy on the front end to make the speed. It's up to the drivers behind him to use some initiative and force it. If they just sit back & let the leader get away with larceny then more fool them. They deserve to get beaten. To fine the leader because those behind him don't have a go is another thing that's just plain ridiculous.

Triple you have my vote on this one, it's just revenue making B.........t the driver leading in a slow sectional is still driving to win the race so what is exactly the problem.

[triplev123]

Triple you have my vote on this one, it's just revenue making B.........t the driver leading in a slow sectional is still driving to win the race so what is exactly the problem.

G'day Mango,

I don't think it's revenue raising.
Rather it is the severely contradictory nature of 3 rules that is the issue.
I don't have the exact Rule numbers at hand however it is....

(1) the setting of slow sectionals rule
versus
(2) the rule that covers giving a horse every possible chance to finish in the best position
verus
(3) the rule that requires connections to notify a change of tactics...

...and this now apparently even if said change happens to have occurred in a last moment decision as the gate fold back & even if said change happens to have resulted in the horse winning and where a pretty fair case could be made for the fact that it probably would not have won if it had been driven in its otherwise customary fashion.

I think you could reasonably argue that going faster than you need to on the lead so as to comply with the required sectional maximums (1) is actually doing something that is in direct contravention of (2).
One could also reasonably argue that by way of attempting to comply with (2) that any contravening of (3) was a fair and reasonable thing to have done and so on.

As such those 3 dictates above, IMO, serve to work both partially & directly against each other and in doing so they leave trainers & drivers in the position where they are pretty much rooted if they do and they're pretty much rooted if they don't. Personally I think it is an unnecessarily tangled web of rules and somehow it needs to be sorted out & very much forthwith.

[mango]

I know it's a rule and it's a rule that i don't agree with.

[triplev123]

Indeed. Join the line. It stretches to the horizon. You know, the inevitable result of the continual creation of rules is that eventually one will serve to directly contradict another. I fear we have reached that point as we now have 3 of them that fit such a bill.